Policy Talk:Canon

This discussion page is limited the development (and later refinement) of BattleTechWiki's canon policy. This is a re-boot of the discussion started at Template talk:NonCanon.

Starting Off

Gentlemen, I think to start this off I'll re-introduce Herb's quote from the CBT forums:

----

Computer games and the material printed only in Germany (with the exception of the FOunding of the Clans novels by Randall Bills) are not considered canonical.

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.

Currently, that list includes:

All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States

All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiary, BattleCorps) in the United States

All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)

The list does not include:

Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others

The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems

The BattleTech cartoon series

The BattleTech comic book series

GENERAL NON-INCLUSIVE NOTE: Despite their non-canonical status, we have not gone into total denial about these sources either, but have simply opted to pick and choose what elements there are "canon" and what are not.

For example, the BattleTech cartoon series' events may not be canon, but the characters they contained were, and the series itself has been referenced as an in-universe "propaganda vid" for the children of the FedCom growing up in the wake of the Clan invasion.

- Herb

----

So, create a new headline for policy concepts. Please address specific concept comments within that concept section (for clarity purposes).

Levels Concept

Now, Herb's statement is a good starting point. However, its far from inclusive of the material we want to have on BTW. So, I propose we 're-write' Herb's policy to include levels (i.e., Level 1 supersedes Level 2 supersedes Level 3). Levels are already understandable as a concept to most BTers (though it has itself been superseded with the new Core books).

Here's my first draft:

---

Level 1

• All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc and for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
• All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiary, BattleCorps) in the United States
• All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

Level 2

• All of the above materials that have been contradicted by later Level 1 sources
• "Official" posts held by developers, writers and other employees of the CBT line
• "Official" live chats held by developers, writers and other employees of the CBT line

Level 3

• All sourcebooks and novels produced in Germany
• "Official" WebZines, such as FanPro Commando Quarterly
• "Official" magazines, such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech and others
• The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems
• The BattleTech cartoon series
• The BattleTech comic book series

Level 4

• All "non-official" creations of developers, writers and other employees of the CBT line, of any format
• All "non-official" fan creations, of any format

Note: Level 4 material will not be incorporated into BTW articles dealing of Levels 1-3 origination, with the exception of a "See Also" section

---

Please include your comments regarding my Levels concept. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:37, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

Scaletail, you stated the following in the original discussion: "A four-step grade of canon is probably confusing to anybody who doesn't already know the deal. I guess this comes down to who our audience is. If we mean to inform people who have only a passing familiarity with BT about BT, then I think we need a clearly labeled delineation concerning what is and is not canon. If we are only here to serve the hardcore fans, then, no, we can expect them to be able to discern between what sources are more trustworthy than others."

I interpret that to mean you generally disagree with a Level-based policy. I'm hoping I address your issue of confusion for (what I term) Level 3 fans coming to the site by the above simplicity, but I suspect it any dismissal of this concept by you will be directly tied to your establishment of style policy. To answer that, I believe in references, references, references...by source at a minimum and a direct attribution, if at all possible. If we (the BTW Wardens) start using inline citations as a matter of course, then we can inculcate a sense of incompleteness without a source (or at least call into question any additions that come without suitable references that would provide the level of canonicity of the material). The inline citations (and tags for article-wide and sectional references needed) will go along way in establishing -by their very presence- the need to include references. I'd be happy to bring those templates over here, if the style policy discussion calls for it.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:00, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

The Frabby approach

First off, thanks for kickstarting this. I suggest a slightly different approach, based on what Herb wrote and on Scaletail's objections, and suggest the following:

Canon

Everything that is cleraly Canon because TPTB say it is. Covers Levels 1 and 2 above. This includes "canonized" Optional Canon such as the Crescent Hawks. And it does include the Animated Series as far as the sourcebook canonized it.

Optional Canon

All official publications that are not Canon and have not been canonized. Level 3 above, plus foreign-language material that was never published in English.

The most logical approach would be "Canonical unless contradicted" but that is expressly not the stance of the license holders. Alledgedly. Because everything they say points in this direction, leading me to believe there is a legal issue behind their official stance and their actual treatment of the material (see Herb's "General non-inclusive note").

Alledgedly, some of this material (namely BattleTechnology) was positively Canon in its time, and has been de-canonized by the current license holders.

Non-Canon

Any non-official publications. Typically, fan-produced stuff. This likely includes articles and scenarios published oputside the license in non-BT-media (roleplaying magazines) and probably quite a bit of stuff from various MechForce sources. It also includes "private" publications from FASA/FanPro/WizKids/Catalyst Lab personnell that is published outside of their official function as professional BT contributors.

Non-Canon is not something we would put up on this wiki, except for custom designs clearly marked as such.

Conflicting information

As a rule of thumb, go by the following order:

• 1. Canon trups Optional Canon (and Non-Canon is irrelevant).
• 2. Mind the point-of-view - many canonical sources are biased or admit that they provide rumours, unconfirmed or incomplete information. Treat all information as equally valid but not equally strong, and try to find a possibility to interpret/combine seemingly conflicting information.
• 3. later publications trump earlier publications.
• 4. Other than that, the more specific/detailed information usually beats more general descriptions.

Frabby 11:59, 17 July 2008 (CDT)

I see your concept of naming to be very similar to the Levels concept, with the exception that it does not automatically include everything as canon. Pros: It will solve disagreements about whether something is canon (or not) on BTW. Cons: Utilizing the specific terminology may allow some to feel as if their material is less than acceptable (same as mine, but more pointedly so). This could lead -if we're not careful- to some claiming BTW is not legitimate, due to its canon policy. I can easily sign onto your concept (dropping the 'Level' term) if we would work on the naming conventions for each type and clearly expanding what is encompassed in each category. (On that last note, I'm going to be adding the German material to the Levels concept...thanks!).

One final thing: I'm...loathe....to include the cartoon's sourcebook as Canon (in your use of the category). No reference provided, but I was under the impression that the in-universe perspective of the cartoon was that itself was a cartoon for Inner Sphere children. The sourcebook, in that respect, would be a sourcebook for the in-universe cartoon, and would not supersede any sources that came before it. That's how it differs: generally newer trumps older, but I could not agree to that in this case. In fact, I'd want place it solidly in your Non-Canon category (because it is 'fiction' within the BTUniverse, though -by definition- it should be in Optional Canon. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:21, 17 July 2008 (CDT)